Why does it not make sense? Does a cop need to give his wife a bulletproof vest and some heavy firepower just because his job might endanger her life? Or a soldier? Or a spy? Does Spider-Man need to get a radioactive spider to bite Mary Jane to give her superpowers, because of all the danger he puts her in? Or Superman need to put Lois Lane into an impenetrable bubble to keep her safe from all his enemies?

I was simply browsing this ridiculous thread and felt a need to respond to this.

Having been both in the military and law enforcement, I cannot even begin to express how wrong you are in your sentiments above, when you look at it in context.

Soldiers/Spies - Their fights are usually away from where their loved ones are, but you BET their families WILL be armed and as armored as they can possibly be if the fight somehow reached their doorsteps.

Law Enforcement - Although they are in the local community, again, their battles are usually away from home. With that being said, most LEOs I know with families more often than not train their families how to defend their homes. They usually do this by training responsible family members with firearms, and making sure that these same family members know how to access the said firearms and bulletproof vests/shields as they apply. They also teach outside awareness to the same family members for when they aren't home and might be targeted.

In daily mundane life, yes they won't be as armed or armored as their serving family members, but the context here is imminent danger.

Considering they already showed Pepper being IN a blast, I'd only think of Tony as utterly stupid if he DIDN'T design some kind of system to protect Pepper. The path of least resistance right now is armor, or a robot bodyguard. But a bodyguard won't necessarily protect her from blasts.

You might have some purist vendetta against Pepper getting an armor, but there's less of you than there are standard, non-comic-immersed movie-viewers who'd think the same way I would in regards to the logic of armoring Pepper. Considering that it ACTUALLY happened in the comics makes it tilt even further away from your arguments.

I'm sorry if I just repeated someone else's sentiments here, as I haven't read past the post I just quoted and responded to.

Considering we were talking about the logic of putting Pepper in armor versus your inane attempts to talk down said logic, I don't get why you're trying to sound smug. Like you won something.

It might be because your response was so inane that I didn't feel it warranted anything more than what I wrote.

Quote:

Soldiers/Spies - Their fights are usually away from where their loved ones are, but you BET their families WILL be armed and as armored as they can possibly be if the fight somehow reached their doorsteps.

Comforting thought, if it existed anywhere in the real world, and not just in the realm of sheer fantasy within your own head. Watch any video of, or read any news report of, any war zone anywhere any time since time began, and try to find *any* instance of them handing out suits of armor or bulletproof vests to civilians caught in the line of fire.

Go ahead: I'll wait.

There's only one that's used for civilians caught in the line of fire: casualties. Or maybe two words: collateral damage.

I wish things worked the way you said, and that weapons and armor grew on trees, and that civilians could magically go unharmed when bad guys start shooting at them, but reality isn't rainbows and moonbeams. It's cold and hard, and it kills.

Quote:

Law Enforcement - Although they are in the local community, again, their battles are usually away from home. With that being said, most LEOs I know with families more often than not train their families how to defend their homes. They usually do this by training responsible family members with firearms, and making sure that these same family members know how to access the said firearms and bulletproof vests/shields as they apply. They also teach outside awareness to the same family members for when they aren't home and might be targeted.

Again with your fantasies. Sure, some cops have "the family that shoots together stays together" attitude, and I have a few in my own family tree. And I also know plenty of cops who *don't* have that attitude, and whose wives and/or kids have never picked up a gun in their lives.

And yeah, I "won" this silly argument by virtue of what we now know about this movie. The "Rescue armor" is nothing more than one of Tony's Extremis suits that he claps onto her to protect her during the mansion attack; *not* something he's lovingly crafted for her personal protection and long-term use as a his-n-hers matching set.

Also, here's a thought (a real for once ). Why not just rename the thread and make it a Pepper character thread if there isn't one. If there is then lock or merge it with that one. Maybe then we can discuss her character and not a suit that doesn't feature in the film.

Comforting thought, if it existed anywhere in the real world, and not just in the realm of sheer fantasy within your own head. Watch any video of, or read any news report of, any war zone anywhere any time since time began, and try to find *any* instance of them handing out suits of armor or bulletproof vests to civilians caught in the line of fire.

LOL

You're as deluded as some of your arguments.

A) Having been in the military, I would find a way to to equip my family *as much as I can* if my fights got onto US soil.

Where the flying crapstick did I mention the military or the gov't handing out equipment to civilians? Show me THAT instance. Although I flipping guaran-damn-tee you that I'd yank the [government-issued] flak vest off my body to hand to my wife if it came to that.

I'll highlight the relevant bit you missed:

Quote:

...WILL be armed and as armored as they can possibly be

...meaning that the serving family member will do whatever is in HIS power to equip his family. Considering the discussion was about the fictional character of Tony Stark, tell me where he ISN'T capable of doing at least this--and then some--for Pepper. Which leads me to:

B) LOL [again] at your "win."

The argument wasn't about whether she should be Rescue or not. At least not from me. It was about the logic of placing her in armor at some point to protect her from the dangers that follow Tony around, and how you used LEOs and servicemembers as weak point in your inane argument.

You and others like you had all these fallacious arguments like: "she's not a weak woman," "look at servicemembers and LEOs," etc., etc. And yet, the logic you were arguing against won through in the movie. I was also here to tell you as being BOTH a former servicemember AND LEO that you are flat-out WRONG in how we'd strive to protect our families when the fight gets to OUR DOOR, which is WHAT HAPPENED TO TONY IN THE MOVIE.

A) Having been in the military, I would find a way to to equip my family *as much as I can* if my fights got onto US soil.

Where the flying crapstick did I mention the military or the gov't handing out equipment to civilians? Show me THAT instance. Although I flipping guaran-damn-tee you that I'd yank the [government-issued] flak vest off my body to hand to my wife if it came to that.

I'll highlight the relevant bit you missed:

...meaning that the serving family member will do whatever is in HIS power to equip his family. Considering the discussion was about the fictional character of Tony Stark, tell me where he ISN'T capable of doing at least this--and then some--for Pepper. Which leads me to:

B) LOL [again] at your "win."

The argument wasn't about whether she should be Rescue or not. At least not from me. It was about the logic of placing her in armor at some point to protect her from the dangers that follow Tony around, and how you used LEOs and servicemembers as weak point in your inane argument.

You and others like you had all these fallacious arguments like: "she's not a weak woman," "look at servicemembers and LEOs," etc., etc. And yet, the logic you were arguing against won through in the movie. I was also here to tell you as being BOTH a former servicemember AND LEO that you are flat-out WRONG in how we'd strive to protect our families when the fight gets to OUR DOOR, which is WHAT HAPPENED TO TONY IN THE MOVIE.

So again, what were you so smug about?

Since you missed it:
Hunter Rider said to shut the hell up.
You'd be well-advised to do so. I did.

I really liked Rescue on Iron Man: Armored Adventures. I liked the dynamic of Tony, Pepper and Rhodey all out together. Of course, her characterization was a bit different in that series. Until I see the film, I still think it would be cool to have Rescue

I concur. Not because I dislike Gwyneth Paltrow, but because I hate Rescue.

Here's the problem as I see it, for any future films highlighting Iron Man, the audience can have an expectation of Pepper suiting up again. Pepper could now be considered a super hero in her own right and, coming from a completely biased perspective against the idea of RESCUE, that's not a film I want to see.